Chris Lombardi puts defense and security under the spotlight, as he shares his takes on recent NATO and EU cooperation and provides insight into the company’s own long-term strategic partnerships in Europe.

Three trends are currently driving the global electricity sector: decarbonization, decentralization and differentiation. Utilities are making significant contributions to mitigate carbon emissions, while a technology revolution is …

EU-wide rules on immigrant employment resisted

Proposals by the European Commission to crack down on the employment of illegal immigrants are facing strong opposition from EU member states, with many indicating that they cannot accept criminal sanctions being imposed at an EU level.

The disagreement emerged when the proposals were discussed by interior ministers at a meeting in Brussels on 24 July. The Commission’s aim is that member states will establish common rules on penalties that could be imposed on employers who hire illegal workers. It is proposing that they should be compelled to apply criminal sanctions to particularly serious abuses and not be allowed to treat them as simple administrative misdemeanours. Use of the criminal code would allow tougher sanctions, such as prison sentences, to be handed down by judges.

The inclusion of criminal sanctions has, however, aroused opposition from a number of member states. Objections include that it would be an affront to national sovereignty, and that it would go beyond the Commission’s powers.

One of the leading critics is Germany’s interior minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, who says that criminal sanctions are “not justified”. He is backed by Poland, the Netherlands, Latvia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Sweden and Finland. The Finnish government has already made a written proposal to the EU’s Council of Ministers that decisions on whether to apply criminal sanctions should be left to member states.

Both Sweden and Finland contest that the Commission does not even have the power to propose the inclusion of rules on criminal sanctions. Swedish Interior Minister Tobias Billström insisted that “no criminal law competence has been transferred to the Community”.

Both countries argue that a measure dealing with criminal sanctions could only be adopted by Council as a separate so-called ‘third pillar’ law. This would need to be adopted unanimously by member states, whereas the draft legislation proposed by the Commission can be adopted with only a qualified majority. These arguments are rejected by the Commission, which claims that the case law of the European Court of Justice proves it is acting within its competence.

Other member states, notably those on the EU’s southern border, do support the Commission’s plans. Italy’s justice minister, Roberto Maroni, admitted that criminal sanctions are already used in Italy to punish employers of illegal workers, and that “they have not proved as effective as might have been hoped”. He noted, however, that “maybe this is because in Italy the criminal law is not always very efficient”.

French Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux has made securing agreement on the legislation one of his personal priorities during France’s presidency of the EU. Hortefeux appeared to hint following the meeting that the idea of including criminal sanctions is likely to be abandoned. He said the discussion showed that “national sovereignty should apply to penalties”.

The Commission also faced strong opposition at the meeting over another element of its proposals – that member states should be set a quota for how many businesses they have to inspect every year, to see if they employ illegal workers. The idea was opposed by a number of member states during the discussion, including Germany, Finland, Netherlands, Slovakia, Lithuania, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Sweden, and Poland.